What a waste of american lives!!

Even if the Iraqi oil helps to marginalise Saudi Arabia and its madrassas in the future I feel that it was not worth the cost and I totally doubt that the average Iraqi willfeel any gratitude towards the USA in the future although oil company executives in the USA (no names) will be happy.

Posted by: Zathras at December 19, 2005 6:36 AM

Bush supporters think that the "Iraqis" can just shed their Islam and become dedicated democrats overnight. They think "Iraqis" understand the concept of "secularism". They think that women's rights and minority rights will be observed because they don't think it contradicts Islamic law. They think that "Iraqis" can see beyond tribal and sectarian divisions and vote as independent minded nationals. They think the future rulers of Iraq will respect the letter of the law more than the letter of Islam. They think that once that the Americans leave that the Iraqis will be able to fend for themselves economically and won't require any more generous hand outs. They think the Iraqis appreciate the Americans for rebuilding their country. They think that Iraqis are sick of "terrorism", not just against them, but also against the Americans who are there only to help. They think that the Iraqis deserve democracy because of Saddam's nasty regime. They think that the Iraqis will be able to keep in power a government that isn't based on the rule of a strongman. They think handing Iraq over to the Shia will make America and Israel safer. They think "Iraqis" are ready for democracy because, well uh, THEY VOTED AND FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH. And if you disagree with any of this you are either a leftist or a racist.

Posted by: igor at December 19, 2005 6:44 AM

Well put Igor!!

I will bet that the hand that feeds is near bitten off within a decade by the Muslim cur.

"The dishonest man thinks that the generous man is but a fool as he gives away what he no longer has to take" Tom Jones ....Fielding...OMG I remembered a source!!!!

Posted by: Zathras at December 19, 2005 6:58 AM

l think what you are all missing, what in place would you put there, another dictator for life? Democracy with all it worts, and sometimes messy, is
the route to take to stablelize the region. l did not hear from any GOp official all will be perfect, after this elecion. Democracy and islam are like water and oil! we cant let the middle east stay as it is, by establishing a foothold, there is a chance, a small one for democracy, but a chance to stablize that area. Turkey not perfect, but still better than Iran eh?

Posted by: Lulu at December 19, 2005 7:01 AM

Once again, Robert's careful circumspection admirably covers all his tracks.

Certainly elections in Russia and China had nothing in common with those in Iraq, where multiple parties took part and real choices were available.

And certainly any Muslim democratic polity in the world will exist under pressure and threat from extremist elements culled from within this barbaric religious-cultural fabric.

Nonetheless, isn't the good fight for freedom preferable to autocracy? Isn't it relevant that the majority of Iraqis defied the dictums of the jihadis and eagerly participated in this Democratic exercise?

Shouldn't we - with a dose of the healthy scepticism that Robert conveys - at least hope the Democratic opening in Iraq is lasting, that it will effect positive change in that country and the region, and that this might...MIGHT...become the Middle Eastern version of the crumbling of the Berlin Wall?

Posted by: Cornelius at December 19, 2005 7:13 AM

I'm rather sleepy here, been awake since 2am... but I don't recall ANY Republican manking such claims. Just as Bush Never said 'Immanent,' that is a lie being fed to the public. (He said 'Before Saddam becomes an Immanent threat')
Links, please!

(I do however think there is Another goal in the works, one that all the talk about Democracy is masking... just too tired to put it in the right words right now),

Posted by: Gary at December 19, 2005 7:15 AM

PS - Robert wrote:

"That is because, as far as I am concerned, the fact that they are voting doesn't establish anything."

As far as I'm concerned, it establishes that the Iraqi people are not boycotting the Democratic construct imported by the occupiers, a remarkable development all things considered...nor or they listening to the admonitions of the jihadis.

Posted by: Cornelius at December 19, 2005 7:18 AM

We can hope all we want that Democracy will take a foothold in Iraq but as we see here, day in and day out, the odds are not good and who are we kidding? If these people against us are willing to destroy themselves to achieve their goals and are willing to keep breeding more and more candidates for suicide to achieve their goal of world domination, what's one little election going to do? Democracy and Sharia are mutually exclusive and I think more like a cup of water in the path of a tidal wave. If the majority of people there are pro Islam and if they are continually told that democracy is bad and wrong, how will it stand?

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 19, 2005 7:27 AM

Gsry,

Go take a nap, sweetie, and then come back and post what you were thinking. I want to hear what you have to say.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 19, 2005 7:28 AM

Sorry, that's Gary. ('Not the only one who hasn't had enough sleep!)

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 19, 2005 7:30 AM

I did not watch, nor yet read, the speech of George Bush delivered last night. So correct me if I turn out to be wrong as I guess at its contents.

I suspect that it yet again posits, possibly in better rehearsed phrases, the same worldview in which:

1) Islam all by itself is just fine, so there should be no thought given as to how to weaken or demoralize or divide Islam. "That wouldn't be right." Or if Islam is not all right, we just don't know what to do about it except try this democracy thing. "Because democracies don't attack democracies."

2) Democracy, being a thing that takes at least 2-3 years to develop (wasn't that how the democratic idea and ideal came to the Western world of America and Europe -- wasn't that what they said in Western Civ?), is just about there in Iraq. Why? Well, because they have already had two elections and one referendum. Whole lot of voting going on. And they show that voting on Arab television networks, and you can tell it's having a big effect. All across the region people are changing their deep-set attitudes and beliefs, and clamoring to get on the democracy bandwagon.

And that's good. Because in our "war on terror" that will end not merely in "victory" but in "total victory" only "democracy" can do the trick. Why? you ask. Good question. Well, because "terrorism" is basically the response of people who have chosen to follow an "evil ideology" as a desperate, last response to unresponsible government. It's just their way of dealing with an absence of "democracy" in their own countries. Those Saudis who were 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11/2001 would never have attacked America if they had had true democracy in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden, Al-Zawaihir, all the rest of those people in the grip of an "evil ideology" took it up because they felt they had no other choice. They certainly weren't eager to become "terrorists," they weren't born with "terrorism" in their minds, they didn't grow up being taught to be "terrorists." Not at all. They are like the rest of us, wanting only a voice. But without democracy you can't have a voice. And that is the beauty of "democracy" -- it gives you a voice. It will give those who might otherwise follow Bin Laden a "voice" and once they have that "voice" they will be so busy campaigning to keep that "voice" that they won't be thinking of ways to blow us up, or to use words like "Infidel" any more.

Because you see, democracies don't fight democracies. That's the truth. You can take that to the bank. In two thousand years, no democracy has ever declared war on a democracy. Oh, sure, I know some people think democracies were born yesterday, and there aren't enough examples, and besides, there was the American Civil War (but the south wasn't a democracy) and the Franco-Prussian War (well, they weren't real democracies), and World War I (ditto -- they onlly become "real" democracies when they stop declaring war on each other), and World War II doesn't count because Germany wasn't a real democracy when England and France declared war on it (Hitler was supported only by a handful of madmen, and would have been voted out right away). And about that Falklands War between Great Britiain and Argentina -- oh, that was too small to count as a war. And...well, you get my point. "Democracies never make war on democracies."

So that's the beauty of our strategy. We just give them democracy -- three elections in one year, whew! -- and let them get used to marching off to vote and purple-thumbs and billboards, and just add water, or blood -- and haven't those Iraqis been something the way they have been so eager and willing to fight as one, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all, unless you are a Shi'a and the "all" includes the Sunnis, or a Sunni and the "all" includes the Shi'a, or either a Sunni or a Shi'a Arab and the "all" is supposed to include Kurds. Well, with some liberty, and some justice, for those who resemble me, or my family, or my tribe.

And once we have transformed Iraq and then the whole Middle East, the Iraqis -- the Iraqi people of Iraq -- will be our alies, our iraqi allies. Now and forever. We will have achieved "Total victory" in the war on terror.

I said it wouldn't be easy to achieve a "total victory" on the war on terror. I said we would have to dream big dreams and scheme big schemes. I said it would take 3-4 years, to end once and for all the scourge of terror. I knew that the best way, really the only way, to do this, would be to bring "democracy" right to the heart of the Middle East. You see, they've never seen a democracy in action. They don't know, really, what goes on in a democracy. They are completely ignorant of what happens in Israel. They don't know even about Lebanon before its civil war. They don't know what goes on in Europe and North America and much of the rest of the world.

It may be hard to believe, but they don't travel. They don't read newspapers. They don't read books. They just didn't know what democracy was all about. They didn't have any examples to look at. Well, we gave it to them. We gave them a taste of democracy and now -- well, democracy is habit-forming. Democracy is addictive. Get those three elections under your belt, the way the Iraqi people have, and that's all you need.

We are on the way to "total victory" in the "war on terrorism." Because we have to. We will accept nothing else. We need that "total victory." We need to give those Iraqis that "democracy" that they so desperately need, so that the next time a young boy growing up in Ramadi or in Fallujah or in Najaf or Baghdad, has a problem, feels that things are not going right, he will not feel the urge to run off and join some terrorist group. He'll support his favorite candidate, to make thintgs right. Or, he may even run for office himself.

And what happens in Iraq will vitally effect what happens in Iran, and in Syria, and in Lebanon, and in Egypt, and in Algeria, and in Morocco, and in Saudi Arabia. Think of a young boy today growing up in Saudi Arabia. Do you want him to be a future supporter of Al Qaeda, or do you want him to enjoy the rich ripe fruits of "democracy"?

It's a choice I had to make. I've made it. I'm proud of it. I'm more determined than ever to see this through to "total victory" in the "war on terrorism."

Thank you, and good night.

Posted by: Hugh at December 19, 2005 7:35 AM

Isabella~ I'm having more coffee- which is probably going to be a Big mistake.

However. I was noticing on CNN (of all places), scenes from Iraq... kids playing video games. The (rare) occasion when the MSM does bother to show improvements in living conditions (electricity, water, schools). Things like that.

I think something of the same was happening in Iran, prior to Carter handing it over to the mullahs- to this day we hear that a Lot of people in Iran are on our side...

But look at how hard the islamists have had to crack down on the populace in Iran.

Even if Democracy doesn't entirely work in Iraq- They've gotten a healthy dose of the very Western Culture the islamists are always moaning about.

If democracy does fall to sharia down the road, in Iraq, we're going to have (thousands? Tens? Hundreds? of thousands, of children who got a good taste of all that good ole' Wester Corruption.

Who wants to watch claymation shows about those nasty jews, when they have solid memories of Final Fantasy XIV?

Its just a thought. Democracy might fail, but other seeds have been planted.

Not bad for a tired mind... I hope.

Posted by: Gary at December 19, 2005 7:48 AM

Gary most Muslim teenagers in the west play video games and it has absolutely no westernising effect whatsoever and all it does is make them better at using pcs to our detriment. These games are also used to prove western decadence(half naked women in games).

The shah's Iran seemed quite westernised( well as much as is possible in such a muslim state) before it reverted, so all we need is another corrupt democracy which is seen to be just another American pawn and we will have an Iranian relapse in Iraq.

So much depends upon the honesty and the agenda of the first goverment and going by what I have seen or heard about so far, I am not confident.

But then we are born to hope and in the memory of so many dead we must do so.

Posted by: Zathras at December 19, 2005 8:16 AM

I don't know how people can be so optimistic about our little democracy project in Iraq. It's not a quagmire, but how can we honestly say that we are seeing progess among the Iraqi people? The fact that they didn't boycott their elections and voted the way their mullahs told them to is supposed to be seen as progress? The fact that top government officials legitimize "resistance" against the American occupiers is progress? The fact that after all this time, after all this money, this hard work, and the blood of American soliders, the Iraqis still remain ungrateful little shits demanding more and more, is this supposed to make me believe that this effort to "fix everything" was worth it? Colour me unconvinced.

Posted by: igor at December 19, 2005 8:28 AM

I'am with Igor on this one. I certainly do not agree with the anti-war libs take on things. It's not a quagmire like they see it. But voting is just a fad for them right now. Eventually they will revert to their old world view of Islamic tradition. I don't think they are voting from their heads. Maybe from their hearts for the time being. They're just voting the way their mullahs tell them to. al-Sistani is playing with us. To him this is just trick. To get the U.S. to pay for everything. All that recontruction will come in handy when he allies himself with Iran. They will vote alright. Yeah, vote for Sharia.

Posted by: lonely_soul at December 19, 2005 8:53 AM

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=412

The December 15 elections will do little to halt the trend toward the regionalization, and potential fragmentation, of Iraq. The Kurdish north and religious Shi'a in the south seem inclined to force the disintegration of Iraq's central government by shifting power to the regions that they control. The constitution that the government will be based on was written in a way that will hasten this drift toward regionalism. Indeed, in the constitution there is very little to be said about how the central government should function, but much written about the powers accrued to the regional parliaments. Without significant changes made to the constitution, an unlikely prospect at this juncture, Iraq's central government will not have the power to hold the state together.

For the United States, growing talks of withdrawal will result in the reduction of the U.S. troop commitment to the country. Any reduction in U.S. forces could cause more sectarian violence as each power group would struggle to secure its interests in the ensuing power vacuum. In doing so, each power group will simply become more factionalized, thus contributing to the regionalization and fragmentation of the country.

Indeed, the most pressing question that remains is whether Iraq's fragmentation will come as part of a civil war or as the end product of a gradual drift toward increased regional power.

Posted by: mal123 at December 19, 2005 10:02 AM

"For the United States, growing talks of withdrawal will result in the reduction of the U.S. troop commitment to the country. Any reduction in U.S. forces could cause more sectarian violence as each power group would struggle to secure its interests in the ensuing power vacuum. In doing so, each power group will simply become more factionalized, thus contributing to the regionalization and fragmentation of the country."
-- from a posting above

Good.

Posted by: Hugh at December 19, 2005 10:37 AM

Cornelius

"Nonetheless, isn't the good fight for freedom preferable to autocracy?"

Not when

1) the historical record shows that dictatorship (of various degrees -- Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.), geopolitically aligned with the West, is the only type of government capable of inhibiting that unique political culture called Islam (and even then, it can't quite constrain the zeal to be Muslim, to wit: Turkey, where honor killings still go on at an alarming rate and where Mein Kampf is a bestseller; etc. And is Indonesia a democracy or is it "less Muslim" only by virtue of the iron dictatorial fists of Sukarno and Soharto, where an unofficial and savage jihad goes on against non-Muslims; and Malaysia, where former Prime Minister of that nation Mohamed Mahathir received a standing ovation from all Muslim leaders and clerics for his paranoid lunacies concerning Islam vs. Modernity? etc. At any rate, it is arguable that Indonesia under the iron fists of Sukarno and Soharto had Islam and its jihadist & extremist tendencies more constrained than is now the case there where there is, by comparison, more democracy )

2) cultural/anthropological analysis shows that Muslims are incapable of democracy until they so dilute or transmute their Islam as to be virtually non-Muslim anyway.

Since Bush is not in Iraq to de-Islamify it, any democracy that appears there like a superficial Leggos structure superimposed over the stunted, medieval Islam that permeates the world-view of its citizens (no matter how "cosmopolitan" some of them may be) will likely inhibit one more outpost for trans-political Islam far less than would either a dictatorship friendly to us, or the internecine chaos Hugh hopes for (which would inhibit intrinsically bloodthirsty Islam only insofar as it would divert its energies back upon Iraq self-destructively).

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at December 19, 2005 10:44 AM

"... the fact that they are voting doesn't establish anything."
-- posted by Robert

This is exactly right. When speaking of their mental processes, Moslems are children. So, yes, they can joyously jab purple fingers to the sky, fired by some fuzzy belief that Moslems can treat one another humanely, can act in a civilized manner.

But, sooner or later, the darkness of Islamic scripture will be invoked, no doubt in the context of some imagined affront to Islamic integrity [sic]. When that happns, the principles of freedom will go out the window in favor of the Ummah.

At that moment, the optimistic hallucination of Moslem democracy will fade back into the ether once and for all.

PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH

This would be not unlike a 7-year old playing Master of the Universe one moment and crying over his mommy's knee the next.

Moslems are fantastic, literally.

PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH PBUH

"What a waste of american lives!!"
-- posted by Zathras

I disagree. We have no choice but to take one shot at civilizing Moslems, proving that it can or cannot be done.

If the latter proves out (and it will), when the rough stuff starts that having been demonstrated will prove valuable indeed when it comes time to attack on the wide front.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 19, 2005 10:53 AM

Well Pepper old buddy, I guess we'll finally part company on an issue.

I share Robert's (and your) scepticism...only to a lessor extent. Turkey's Democracy has been punctuated by periods of military interventions including periods of direct military rule...so even Turkey is an inadequate example.

I fervently believe there is a transformative potential within a Democratic system. Whether it can permeate the Muslim mind remains to be seen.

I could be wrong, but I happen to think it is a worthwhile endeavor. To have tried to transplant any other system on the heels of the necessary occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq would have carried its own pitfalls.

Posted by: Cornelius at December 19, 2005 5:27 PM

I dont know about you but the Democracy here in the U.S. is still trying to take hold...we are a Nation divided, it takes time folks, lots of time as we can atest too, it is far better than any other but it is set up to keep us at bay.

Our past Presidential Elections showed the true light of Democracy with half our Citizens supporting one party and its agenga and the other half backing a different agenda.

What would it be like if we all agreed to the same terms and conditions here?

No, my friends Democracy is not meant to be easy or forthright, it is perilous in its emerging and forever challenging to all who embrace it.
Not one party rules all and everyone has a voice no matter how extreme, right or left it is. Iraq has a long way to go but it now has CHOICES.

Posted by: chuck at December 19, 2005 5:49 PM

Some say that by these elections Iran has won the war because of the Shiite majority. Maybe they can get along. It is difficult for an outsider to understand.

Posted by: juicealot at December 19, 2005 6:31 PM

iraq most definitely has the potential to be like the German Weimar Republic after WW1. As we know, the Fascists were elected, and Hitler named Chancellor. Even years before the Nazi party came into power, the majority of Germans did not support Democracy with the majority of the people either supporting Fascists and Communist parties.

What I am calling the "Weimar effect", is a very real potential problem in the Middle east, particularly since Political Islam is not a new system in the region, but one held with a starry eyed sentimentalism of past glory. One only needs to look at the strong showing of the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt and Hamas in the Palestinian territories to see this regional trend.

The question is: What will we do if/when these would be caliphates are voted into being?

Posted by: Trupolitik at December 19, 2005 6:32 PM

Iraq has a great potential for some form of democracy or some political process other than being ruled by a mad dictator.

Iraq is not as brainwashed by Islam as others because of its history and Saddam.

Posted by: learjet0450 at December 19, 2005 7:54 PM

"Iraq has a great potential for some form of democracy or some political process other than being ruled by a mad dictator."
-- from a posting above

This "mad dictator" was no sport. He did not arrive from the moon. He was simply a more extreme and more brutal form of the run-of-the-mill Arab despot/dictator. Assad and his son, Nasser-Sadat-Mubarak, the thieving Al-Saud, the generals who in a permanent junta run Algeria, and many others, some of them dignified as hereditary monarchs, who are not quite so despotic and not nearly so ruthless.

Why would anyone think that "Iraq," with ethnic and sectarian divisions that long predate Saddam Hussein, that long predate the arrival of the Ba'ath Party, that predate the invention of modern Iraq, in the case of the Sunni war on Shi'a, by some 1260 years, in a part of the world where legitimacy comes from seizing and holding power, and where the very idea of a government of laws and not of men is laughable, save for those laws that are based on, as closely as possible, to what the Shari'a demands, would possess "great potential for some form of democracy"? If the gain in power through voting by the Shi'a means an end to Sunni rule, why would anyone think the Sunnis would willingly acquiesce, when they believe that their percentage of the population is twice what it really is, and are fighting not only for both power and money, but also because it is right, it is just, that they, Sunni Arabs, should rule over non-Arab Kurds and over those inferior Muslims, the Shi'a (for some Sunnis, the Shi'a should be considered Infidels).

A strange candidate indeed for "democracy."

Posted by: Hugh at December 19, 2005 8:17 PM

From a poster above:

"If the gain in power through voting by the Shi'a means an end to Sunni rule, why would anyone think the Sunnis would willingly acquiesce, when they believe that their percentage of the population is twice what it really is, and are fighting not only for both power and money, but also because it is right, it is just, that they, Sunni Arabs, should rule over non-Arab Kurds and over those inferior Muslims, the Shi'a (for some Sunnis, the Shi'a should be considered Infidels)."

The fact is Sunnis voted in large numbers and have thus shown themselves amenable to participating in the Democratic experiment.

Sometimes facts get in the way of preconceptions.

Posted by: Cornelius at December 19, 2005 8:42 PM

OT but

“The coming days will show you the fate of this “democratic marriage’ and the marriage of prostitution that it celebrated,”

Ecxuse me? Isn't Islam the religion that defiles the name of marriage by allowing prostitute-customer like arrangements that are called "temporary marriages"?

Posted by: JadeDragoness at December 19, 2005 9:08 PM

The election is for many of the Sunnis a supplement and not a substitute for blowing up Americans and Kurds and Shi'a Arabs. If the Sunnis can through elections regain power, that's fine. But they will not stop fighting -- why should they? Some explained to American reporters that fifteen minutes after voting, they would go right back to attacking American convoys. Participation in this election does not imply any endorsement or enthusiasm for democracy -- how can the Sunni Arabs, constituting 20% of the population of iraq, conceivably be enthusiastic about democracy?

In a few weeks, as the Sunnis discover that despite having done everything they were supposed to do, that their 42% of the population (as they fondly believe) is still underrepresented in the Iraqi government, they will be more furious and inconsolable than ever. And why should the Shi'a accommmodate them -- I mean, accommodate them beyond whatever is done for cosmetic reasons, to keep the Americans there to kill (and be killed by) Sunnis, and to train the Badr and Sadr militiamen who have signed up for the "Iraqi" police and the "Iraqi" army being dutifully trained by the Americans. And wouldn't it be wonderful if the Americans decided to arm the "Iraqi" army with advanced weaponry -- now that's someting worth waiting for, worth enduring those hideous Infidels and offering them ostentatiously sincere looks of gratutide. How easy it is to fool those Americans. They are like children. Well, not all of them, and not quite as many as before this all began.

Wait a few weeks. See how the Sunnis react to the election returns.

Posted by: Hugh at December 19, 2005 9:43 PM

juicealot,

I wouldn't worry about the Shia in Iran teaming up with the Shia in Iraq. Iranians are Persians and Iraqis are Arabs. That racial divide is stronger than their religious tie.

The Shia and the Kurds seemed to get along the first time around and both seem willing to bend over backward to accomodate the Sunnis. Maybe that will translate to peaceful power sharing. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Posted by: Big G In TX at December 20, 2005 1:22 AM